Posted on 12/07/2007 8:10:37 AM PST by ZGuy
The Reuters headline said: "Mitt Romney Vows Mormon Church Will Not Run White House." Unfortunately, this time Reuters got its story right. In his long-awaited speech designed to win over conservative evangelicals, Romney actually did say something to this effect, making many people wonder why he needed to make such a vow in the first place. It's a bit like hearing Giuliani vow that the mafia will not be running his White House—it is always dangerous to say what should go without saying, because it makes people wonder why you felt the need to say it. Is the Mormon church itching to run the White House, and does Romney need to stand firm against them?
It is true that John Kennedy made a similar vow in his famous 1960 speech on religion, and Romney was clearly modeling his speech on Kennedy's. But the two situations are not the same. When John Kennedy vowed that the Vatican would not control his administration, he was trying to assuage the historical fear of the Roman Catholic Church that had been instilled into generations of Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Kennedy shrewdly didn't say that the Vatican wouldn't try to interfere—something that his Protestant target audience would never have believed in a millions years anyway; instead, Kennedy said in effect, "I won't let the Vatican interfere." And many Protestants believed him—in large part, because no one really thought Kennedy took his religion seriously enough to affect his behavior one way or the other.
The Mormon church is not Romney's problem; it is Romney's own personal religiosity. On the one hand, Romney is too religious for those who don't like religion in public life—a fact that alienates him from those who could care less about a candidate's religion, so long as the candidate doesn't much care about it himself. On the other hand, Romney offends precisely those Christian evangelicals who agree with him most on the importance of religion in our civic life, many of whom would be his natural supporters if only he was a "real" Christian like them, and not a Mormon instead.
To say that someone is not a real Christian sounds rather insulting, like saying that he is not a good person. But when conservative Christians make this point about Romney, they are talking theology, not morality. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Mormon creed will understand at once why Romney felt little desire to debate its theological niceties with his target audience of Christian evangelicals, many of whom are inclined to see Mormonism not as a bona fide religion, but as a cult. In my state of Georgia, for example, there are Southern Baptist congregations that raise thousands of dollars to send missionaries to convert the Mormons to Christianity.
Yet if Romney was playing it safe by avoiding theology, he was treading on dangerous ground when he appealed to the American tradition of religious tolerance to make his case. Instead of trying to persuade the evangelicals that he was basically on their side, he did the worst thing he could do: he put them on the defensive. In his speech Romney came perilously close to suggesting: If you don't support me, you are violating the cherished principle of religious tolerance. But such a claim is simply untenable and, worse, highly offensive.
The Christian evangelicals who are troubled by Romney's candidacy do not pose a threat to the American principle of religious tolerance. On the contrary, they are prepared to tolerate Mormons in their society, just as they are prepared to tolerate atheists and Jews, Muslims and Hindus. No evangelical has said, "Romney should not be permitted to run for the Presidency because he is a Mormon." None has moved to have a constitutional amendment forbidding the election of a Mormon to the Presidency. That obviously would constitute religious intolerance, and Romney would have every right to wax indignant about it. But he has absolutely no grounds for raising the cry of religious intolerance simply because some evangelicals don't want to see a Mormon as President and are unwilling to support him. I have no trouble myself tolerating Satan-worshippers in America, but I would not be inclined to vote for one as President: Does that make me bigot? The question of who we prefer to lead us has nothing to do with the question of who we are willing to tolerate, and it did Romney no credit to conflate these two quite distinct questions. There is nothing wrong with evangelicals wishing to see one of their own in the White House, or with atheists wishing to see one of theirs in the same position.
Romney's best approach might have been to say nothing at all. Certainly that would have been preferable to trying to turn his candidacy into an issue of religious tolerance. Better still, he might have said frankly: "My religion is different and, yes, even a trifle odd. But it has not kept Mormons from dying for their country, or paying their taxes, or educating their kids, or making decent communities in which to live."
And we ARE on a stage now!
(And you are sticking to your plan...)
FAKE RESEARCHER ALERT!
FAKE RESEARCHER ALERT!
Frankly, no religious leader in the past, from ANY religion, would be considered credible today.
I can think of ONE, of a certain religion, right off the top of my head...
;)
You will perceive at once that this will be a work of mutual benefit, and we cheerfully and warmly request your co-operation in the purchase and sale of the above-named Journal, and wish all the profits arising therefrom to be under the control of Elder Watt.Brigham YoungHeber C. KimballWillard RichardsFirst Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Since the ABOVE is NOT considerewd 'scripture' you may dismiss it as trash.
--MormonDude(At least I know what is to be worshipped!)
~”You cannot possibly believe that an issue which has generated this much dissonance at this stage of the primaries is going to be left to die by the goon squad of the DNC!”~
I can, because I remain convinced that if Romney wins, the bigots will have been put firmly in their place. Any attacks on Romney’s faith in the general will result in backlash, just as the anti-Mormons are helping along Romney’s cause in gaining the vote of reasonable conservatives.
~”If you actually are trying to convince us of that foolishness, you’ve lost any credibilty you may have had, Tant.”~
Credibility with you is not an asset I value highly. Frankly, I thought the account had long since run dry.
~”Think about it, Mormon”~
I swear, your spittle shoots farther every day.
??? Well, I certainly do not hate “everything non-Mormon” - as proof I point out the utter lack of ANY post where I fight against or criticize those outside my religion for religious reasons.
Can you, say the same? cough, cough ... chrip, chrip of cricket legs ...
lol! Pathetic. Can’t do anything original so all you do is try a pissing contest (”Oh yeah? Well you’re STUPIDER!”)
Well; it IS the very definition of 'ignorant'.
It's not all THAT hard to catch up on lost opportunity; is it?
I am a Christian - not a Mormon.
Quoting the Journal of Discourses simply makes you look foolish.
Oh, really?
Perhaps, it makes the Mormon cult look foolish - and that is what you know is vulnerable here.
Shall we discuss the Golden Plates in "Reformed Egyptian", or the magic hat next?
Even more damning, why don't you address a Mormon founder who is literally worshiped quoted as saying Joseph Smith is (or part of) the way to salvation as opposed to Jesus Christ alone - God's only son?
Do you wish to answer that sir/madam?
I am sorry?
I can't hear you?
No - you won't - will you. You cannot.
Your 'church' is founded on a man who had a Messianic complex and he has led you all astray.
Christ is standing at the door - waiting for you to knock. He saved me - and I was the worst of sinners.
~”Well, Romney attacked the wrong people.”~
See, your whole problem here is that you interpret the speech as an attack on the religious, when it was exactly the opposite.
This makes it most difficult to believe your assertions that your opposition to Romney is on policy grounds.
There are many people who say, “That was a great speech, but I’m still voting for somebody else.” Well and good. You, on the other hand, have taken a different approach: “That speech attacked me; I’m still voting for somebody else.” It’s not an approach that will win you many allies.
The Mormon 'church' keeps revising and re-writing itself every few years in order to cover its mistakes.
Sadly, No Elsie. I’m sorry to break the bad news to you. This is NOT a stage. It’s merely a venue where some small-minded, shallow, dishonest, and uncharitable people can foist their intolerant bigotry towards Mormons.
If we were on a stage, we’ll be following a set format, be overseen by a referee, and have audiences with their Scriptures open in their laps. We would see each other face-to-face, be civil with each other, and try to avoid looking like raving lunatics. If we were on a stage, I’ll be repeatedly pointing out the the audience how you’ve avoided my arguments and how you’ve engaged in logical fallacies.
So, I’m truly sorry to say, my dear Elsie, this is NOT a stage. Try to stare away from the shiny light.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19What do YOU think about Presbyterians?
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”
Which scriptures? Mormon, or the real ones?
Funny. I’m a Christian BECAUSE I’m a Mormon.
My religion has so much to offer spiritually, scripturally, emotionally, and intellectually.
My religion solves the most intractable problem facing theists today - How can an all good, all powerful, and all knowing God exist in the face of physical and moral evil?
Can your religion do likewise? Does it explain why the earthquake destroyed the orphanage? Does it explain why an all good, all powerful God with perfect knowledge of the future allowed Hitler to exist and do what he did? Does your religion explain why some babies experience horrible agony and pain from cancer, spina bifida, and other sources?
Of course not. Determinism and free will theodicies are incapable of resolving these problems which is why atheists have consistently defeated theist philosophers in debates.
Hey! Does your religion explain the origins of the universe in a manner that doesn’t violate common sense? Or can you only come up with the Unmoved Mover deity?
What say you?
Sure I would...if he was an EX- Chevy owner! (And especially had he owned a number of Chevies over the years!)
Hey Elsie, do you believe 2 + 2 = 4?
No? Why not? Oh, because it is NOT in the Scriptures!
Ah yes, if it’s not in the good ol’ book; it doesn’t count.
Tsk, tsk. Typical Elsie.
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.